HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-30; Municipal Water District; MinutesI
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, HELD ON OCTOBER 30, 1985, AT
2:OO P.M. AT 5950 EL CAMINO REAL, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008.
The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by President Bonas,
with Directors Almack, Haasl, Kelly, Maerkle and Bonas answering
roll call. Also present were General Manager Meadows, Controller
Brammell, Operations Superintendent Musser, Deputy District Engineer Blakesley, Legal Counsel Moser, District Engineer Burzell and Executive Secretary Woodward. Geoffrey Poole, Rose
Grimm, Barbara Barnhill, Barbara Hal lman of the League of Women Voters, and Frank Mannen, Jim Elliott, Gene Donovan, Charlie
Grimm, Roger Greer and Jim Hagaman of the City of Carlsbad also attended.
Workshop on Capital Improvement Plan
Presentation by City of Carlsbad Mr. Mannen introduced Charlie
Grimm, principal planner for the City of Carlsbad, who reviewed the City's land use plan described some significant changes that the Citizens' Committee
has recommended to the City Council and indicated some of the changes that may impact the District's water planning effort.
Mr. Grimm is substituting at this meeting for Mr. Holzmiller who is ill.
I Mr. Grimm said that not much has changed in terms of land use.
Basically the land use committee reaffirmed the City's general plan. The most major revision is regarding residential densities
which they want lowered. This will lower the total units at buildout. The Citizens' Committee report has been adopted by the Council andcity Staff has beendirectedtoundertake anumber of
programs, some of which will require further adoption.
The second thing Staff has been asked to do, which relates to
Costa Real MWD, is to refine and expand the public facilities
management system. The City's current program monitors public facilities, including water. The Citizens' Committee felt that
more work and improvement of the system is needed. This system is under the direction of Jim Hagaman of the Research Analysis Group.
Another recommendation of the Committee is for City Staff to
develop a public facilities and services adequacy program: adequacy in terms of public improvements (e.g. in terms of fire,
what is an appropriate response time? In terms of water, adequacy of lines to determine if a project should be approved c denied until facilities are adequate.)
I An increase of park dedication requirements could also reduce density somewhat, depending on if it is taken in terms of land or fees.
I
Another program Staff has been asked to work on is preparation of
updated population projections. This will probably be done by a consultant.
A hillside-overlay ordinance has also been requested from Staff.
This may have an effect on density and may reduce density by not giving credit for certain slopes in excess of 40%.
Staff has been asked to prepare an inventory of areas with
incompatible land use for zoning designations. The Committee
feels that there are some areas in the Carlsbad General Plan that
don't have the appropriate designation.
Staff has also been asked to- prepare an annual staff report on
growth and implementation of the General Plan. \
Most of these programs should be in place by the middle of 1986.
A General Plan Amendment on densities has been heard and approved by the Planning Commission. It will go to Council on the 19th of November.
Discussion followed on water reclamation. This has not been pursued by the City because, according to Mr. Greer, it is not yet cost effective.
I Mr. Meadows commented that the recently updated population
projections by the City have been incorporated in draft No. 2 of
our CIP report. He said the District's plan was designed to
adapt to changing conditions.
Presentation by District Staff Mr. Meadows said that in the District Staff's meeting with
City Staff, they primarily discussed the methodology and philosophy of the report and how conclusions were reached, and
what some of our policies are, as recommended, or existing. Mr.
Meadows reviewed the report with the aid of exhibits displayed by
the overhead projector.
The Water Service Agreement with the City provides three very
specific things: (1) That the District will be responsible for
the planning, financing and construction of all major capital facilities to provide potable water service within the District. (The City has jurisdiction over nonpotable or reclaimed water.)
(2) The District will coordinate the Capital Improvement Program
with the City. (3) The District, with input from the City, will adopt a Master Plan of Facilities.
The City Staff specifically requested that the District summarize
the guiding policies that have gone into the report. There are
four as follows: (1) New development will pay for the
facilities needed for new development in two ways, (a) by contributing facilities which provide specific benefits to the
new developments, and (b) by payment of Major Facilities Charges
which go toward payment of new facilities required because of the new developments (this fee is currently being reviewed for an I
-2- October 30, 1985
I increase); (2) Water users pay for the replacement, upgrading
or enhancement of those facilities which have been used by the water users and which through time have been wearing out;
(3) Makes a distinction between the small recurring projects which are paid on a cash from funds on hand basis versus the
larger projects, The rule of thumb is that cash financing will be used for such things as routine improvements and replacement
of smaller capital items, while debt financing through bonds, etc. will be used for major projects such as reservoirs or major pipelines; (4) Financial policies will be consistent with policies established by the District's Certificate of Participation program. Discussion followed. (Continued below.)
Recess: President Bonas called for a
recess at 3:20 p.m. The
meeting resumed at 3:35 p.m.
I
Mr. Moser referred to his memorandum that goes over the legal
requirements for increasing the Major Facilities Charge and water
rates. He summarized them briefly as follows: (1) Increasing the Major Facilities Charge will require a description of what
the charges are being raised for. They must be reasonably related to the cost of the facilities that are going to be
constructed and the services provided. (2) Any action taken by the District that will have an impact on the environment will
have to be assessed. There are procedural requirements for both the above; advance notice to the public with enough data so the
public can see what the charges are for and that the environmental impacts, if any, have been addressed. The
controlling factor here is Proposition 13. The Master Plan and
the Capital Improvement Plan are the tools for responding to this
control.
He recommended that from a legal perspective the Board should
identify those projects which it feels will be needed in the near future to serve the growing needs of the District and direct
Staff to identify what the costs are and what, if any, the impacts of increasing the fees would be. Some of this has probably already been done by the City in adopting its General Plan. Adopt at least a tentative list of what projects the facilities charges and the increase in water rates, if any, will be funding. Direct Staff to do the estimates and the
environmental work t'hat is necessary to relate the projects to the costs and effects. (See proposed schedule attached to Mr. Moser's memorandum in agenda packet.)
I
Discussion followed on the projects most recommended by Staff ,
(See page 23 of the draft Capital Improvement Plan. ) but which are subject to change according to the specific studies that will be undertaken.
Director Almack made a motion to approve Mr. Moser's
proposed schedule, set a date for a public hearing and direct Staff to obtain the necessary figures, seconded by Director Maerkle.
-3- October 30, 1985
I Director Haasl objected to the separation of the Squires project
into two phases which would delay completion of what she considers a top priority item and recommended that it should be combined, the engineering study done in 1986, and the funding shared by the entire community.
Director Maerkle had another suggestion to line and cover Squires I1 and build a park over it; the cost, maintenance and use of the
park to be shared by Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista.
Mr. Meadows referred to page 47 of the second draft of the CIP and read under Major Recommendations, No. 5. At the appropriate
time it will be recommend'ed that the Board authorize the preparation of an engineering feasibility report for the Squires
11 project. There has been some rethinking on the part of the
Staff concerning Squires 11. At this point we don't have the benefit of an additional study to base any recommendation on. This study would provide answers to Directors Haasl and Maerkle. The present recommendatio'n is based on the knowledge that the project may change to do exactly what is being discussed.
I
Mr. Moser commented that the list of projects for Phase I are to
be financed by Major Facilities Charges and not water rates. To
the extent that the policy underlying this document is to finance consumer oriented projects from water rates, then if that's going
to be part of what's considered in the near term here, then you
might want to add Squires Dam covering and lining and ask Staff toaddress that aspart of consideration as towhat that would do to water rates.
After further discussion Mr. Moser reviewed Director Almack's motion as follows: to adopt for Staff's use the list of projects on page 23 (the Phase I list), direct Staff to prepare the necessary environmental and engineering cost documentation on which a Major Facilities Charge recommendation could be based,
and set a public hearing date for the fee increase for November 20, 1985. The motion carried unanimously.
Other Business
I
Offer and Acceptance: Faraday Mr. Burzell asked for approval
Business Park, CT 83-37 of these three items, the first being acceptance of the Grant Right of Way: Carlsbad completed project at CT 83-37 Research Center, Unit No. 1, (see memorandum in agenda
Lots 4, 5 and 12 packet), the second is accep- tance of easement dedication and authorization for signing
-4- October 30, 1985
I
Falcon Hills, Unit No. 1 and recording the documents
Carlsbad Tract 84-35 (see memorandum in agenda Authorization of Signatures packet), and the third is on Map authorization of signatures on the map of Falcon Hills, Unit
No. 1. This project was approved at an earlier meeting (see
minutes of October 2, 1985) but the map was overlooked, Director
Maerkle made the motion approving the three recommendations, seconded by Director Almack and unanimously carried.
TAP Reservoir - Landscaping Mr. Burzell introduced Bob Pederson, landscape architect,
who reviewed the two possible treatments for landscaping around
the TAP Reservoir, One is the originally proposed crib wall with plantings at a cost estimated around $30,000; the other uses an extended slope, eliminates the crib wall and uses appropriate
plantings. It is estimated at $24,000. He had artist renditions of both plans. Staff recommendation, with which the Board agreed,
was the second plan. However, since our contractual obligation with Cedric Sanders allows his review and approval, after discussion, Director Maerkle made a motion authorizing Mr. Burzell to present both plans to Mr. Sanders for his selection,
seconded by Director Kelly and unanimously carried.
La Costa Hi Reservoir Landscaping of this reservoir
Landscaping was discussed briefly. Mr.
Pederson said he will complete construction drawings and irrigation plans so the District can
take competitive bidding, No action taken. I
Adjournment This meeting adjourned at
4:37 p.m. to November 6, 1985, at 2:OO p.m. in this board- room.
Respectfully submitted,
I I
-5- October 30, 1985